BENGALURU: Karnataka govt has been accused of
delayed action
regarding the
sex video case
allegedly involving JD(S) MP Prajwal
Revanna
, leading to a heated debate between
Congress
and BJP, with questions raised about political motives.
Congress’s decision to wait until after the first phase of voting in the state on April 26 is attributed to political calculations.
Sources said the party aimed to avoid alienating Vokkaliga voters, dominant in phase 1, given the antipathy towards Kurubas, represented by CM Siddaramaiah. Former PM HD Deve Gowda’s clan is regarded as the first family of Vokkaligas.
Siddaramaiah’s govt formed an SIT after elections in south Karnataka in which three members of Gowda’s family, including Prajwal, contested. Gowda’s grandson
Prajwal
is seeking re-election from Hassam as an NDA candidate while his father HD Revanna is JD(S) MLA for Holenarsipur. Both were named in an FIR this Sunday in which a former domestic help accused father-son duo of sexually harassing her and her daughter.
Questions are being asked why govt’s intervention came only after voting was completed, allowing Prajwal to leave the country, though the clips on pen drives were circulating widely before April 26.
BJP alleged friendly relations between Revanna and politicians influenced govt’s actions. Union minister Pralhad Joshi said Prajwal was allowed to fly abroad after “an agreement between the CM and Revanna”. “To cover up its lapse, state govt is blaming Union govt…None of us have opposed Prajwal’s suspension from the party. Still, Congress is blaming NDA,” he said.
Congress functionary Priyanka Gandhi, addressing a rally in Kalaburagi, questioned PM Narendra Modi’s silence on the issue, given BJP and JD(S) are allies in these elections. In response, Union home minister Amit Shah shifted the responsibility onto state govt. “We want to ask why Congress, despite being in office in Karnataka, hasn’t acted. Priyanka should ask Siddaramaiah and deputy CM DK Shivakumar,” Shah said in Guwahati.
Shivakumar defended the delay, stating that action cannot be taken based on oral allegations without a bona-fide complaint from survivors.
